2 please.
peter
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: XSD dependency (urgent problem)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:46:42 -0500
>
> Although XSD 1.1 [1] went to CR some months before OWL and was scheduled
> to end CR at the beginning of August like us, the preliminary
> information I have so far indicates it will be some more months before
> they are ready to go to PR.
>
> As I understand it, we have three options:
>
> 1. Wait for them. The one detail I heard was that they aim to get
> to PR "in the fall". I interpret that as delaying us 2-4
> months, and possibly more. We may be able to get better
> schedule data in a few days. (It's been hard to make contact
> this month; I finally got a response yesterday.) I think we
> could wait before going to PR, or before going to REC, but I
> think it's best to wait before going to PR so that we can still
> use Options 2 and 3, below, without doing a second PR.
>
> 2. Excerpt the relevant parts of their text. I'm told this has
> been done before with XML specs at W3C. The advice I got is to
> do it explicitely: to create a normative appendix that has all
> the parts of XSD 1.1 we need, and note why it's there,
> explaining that a future edition [2] of the OWL spec may remove
> it, after XSD 1.1 gets to REC.
>
> 3. Rework our spec to not depend on XSD 1.1. This might include
> creating some parallel datatype spec, as in Option 2, but using
> a different namespace. I'm not sure of the details, but I
> believe it would create a permanent partial-incompatibility
> between OWL 2 and XSD 1.1. This option might require another
> Last Call and CR, depending on how deep the changes turn out to
> be.
>
> I'm in favor of option 2, as I suspect are all of you. The catch is
> that we'll need approval from the Schema WG, and their approval will
> depend on their confidence that the parts we're excerpting will not have
> substantive changes before REC.
>
> I think the way to proceed is to draft the appendix for option 2 and
> show it to the Schema WG. Then they can consider its stability, and
> decide whether to support our use of it. [If I were saying this in a
> meeting, I expect Boris would complete the drafting before the ensuing
> discussion ended. :-) ]
>
> Procedurally, I see this as new information, leading us to revisit the
> PR publication decision of August 5, allowing us to try Option 2, and
> possibly even Option 3, so we can avoid Option 1.
>
> -- Sandro
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
>
> [2] "Editions" are minor revisions of recommendations, fixing errata,
> and do not go through the whole WD/LC/CR process. The XML spec is on
> it's fifth edition: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/
>